So first you claim to have odometer data, and now you don't have that data after all?
No, I didn't say that, did I Tom? I said:
If it wasn't, for example, about 4800km by road from Brisbane to Perth, then we would know about it because lots of people would be pointing out that their odometers bore no resemblance to the distance predicted by google, or waze, or their old-fashioned road atlas.
Now you backtrack on that and instead show a link which says that two young people cycled 4800 km in 30 days. Here is another link which says that an elderly grandfather cycled 11,616 km in 30 days.
I was using that as one example of a journey where people meticulously planned a journey and then lived and breathed every mile of it. If the distances were wrong, they would know about it. And that, as you well know, is merely one example of many if you cared to look. There are countless websites documenting routes, with distances and rough times, and they are all entirely coherent with the distances you get from google, or indeed any road atlas. Here's just one:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/travel/road-trips/sydney-to-perth-10-day-road-trip
Likewise, as mentioned by Duncan, all the other travel methods, such as rail, are also completely coherent.
Doesn't look like you've provided much in the way of solid evidence on this to me.
Well what do you need? What would you accept as proof of the dimensions of Australia, or North America, or anywhere? You presumably don't require first-hand experience of a country to believe that it exists, otherwise you would need to have visited everywhere yourself to verify that each country does in fact exist, so what makes you think that Australia is even vaguely shaped the way it is? All of the FE maps in the wiki have some kind of nod to Australia, with some kind of shape, but what makes you accept them as valid? You must therefore presumably accept some kind of consensus view on the subject, which then raises the question: why would you reject an overwhelming consensus on dimensions?
Also, the shape and size of Australia is different among all of the Flat Earth maps. Which one are you trying to debunk?
All of them. They are all wrong in at least one very obvious way. Take just a handful of useful rules of thumb - Australia is about 4800km across and 3600km north to south from the tip of the 'horn' of Northern Queensland down to Melbourne. Australia is also roughly the same width as mainland USA, at its widest point. So any FE map where Australia doesn't roughly match the width of the USA is obviously wrong, which immediately rules out most of the ones on the wiki. Likewise, any FE map where Australia is taller than it is wide is also obviously wrong, ruling out both of the bi-polar maps.
As an aside, if there was genuine curiosity in the FE community about the size and shape of the world, why is there a complete absence of enquiry regarding which of the competing maps is correct? You all just seem perfectly content to have a set of maps that are completely at odds with each other, despite being equipped with the tools you need to verify simple distances between known places. It's almost as if you'd rather not know...